Page 64 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In dealing with this issue, Madam Speaker, the committee basically was required to understand or to come to grips with a number of key issues. Those key issues are outlined in chapter 4 of our report. I would like, in the time left available to me, to outline on the public record what those key issues were. Madam Speaker, the draft variation process itself became a key issue. The consultation process and its results became a key issue. The policy of urban infill became a key issue. The North Canberra area strategy quite clearly was an identifiable and demonstrable key issue. The financial viability of the draft variation became a key issue. The use of the defined land provisions was identified as a key issue. The impact of this development proposal on the ACT's tourism potential was identified as a key issue.
Madam Speaker, in the body of our report we have outlined in each of the chapters how we came to grips with those key issues. I will quickly take the Assembly through them. It was suggested that the variation process had not been followed or may not have been followed. In chapter 5, pages 14 to 16, we have outlined the technical requirements in the Land (Planning and Environment) Act and then, in step form, the actual processes as they applied to the North Watson variation. Madam Speaker, our conclusion is contained on page 16, and it is as follows:
The Committee concludes as a result of this assessment that the process outlined in the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 was followed in handling the draft Variation for North Watson. However, the Committee notes community concern in connection with the process and this is taken up later in this report.
We have basically recommended, Madam Speaker, that where a community group or an individual remains dissatisfied with the process outlined in the Land (Planning and Environment) Act they should make a submission to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's inquiry into planning legislation, which we announced last year and in which we will be able to have a more active involvement now that we have finalised consideration of these draft variations. I would encourage individuals and community organisations, where they remain dissatisfied with the process outlined in the Act, to let us know, so that we can take that into account when bringing back recommendations to this Assembly.
In relation to the consultation process and its results, we have attempted in chapter 6 of the report to outline how the consultation process was effected as far as the North Watson variation was concerned. On pages 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 we have dealt with that particular issue. Madam Speaker, we were somewhat concerned that there appeared to be a wholesale rebuttal of the issues as they were dealt with by the Planning Authority. We record that the Watson Community Association said that the consultation process was "seriously flawed", and then made a number of other observations. Where we drew some distinction was that annexure D of the draft variation, of some 110 pages, outlined how the Planning Authority had dealt with the planning issues that they were apprised of during the public consultation process; and to summarily dismiss those, or to dismiss them out of hand as not being relevant or being loaded or flawed, in our view was not necessarily appropriate. You could not, out of hand, dismiss all of the issues contained in those 110 pages, as identified in annexure D of the draft variation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .